IN YOUR CORNER

by the Martin County Taxpayers' Association 12/04/99

This is a discussion of the recent decision to purchase land in Palm City at the intersection of Mapp Road and 36th Street for use as a park.

A commissioner represents each of the five districts in the county, which receives its share of property taxes and fees. The district commissioner generally controls the use of this money. All commissioners must vote to support the use of the funds, but in practice it is generally a rubber-stamp vote. The district commissioner does not have to ask the district taxpayers. Your money is spent as the commissioner decides.

In this case, the funds were district recreation impact fees and they were dedicated to the purchase of land for a park in the district represented by Commissioner Melzer. Although the commissioner does not have to get taxpayers approval, there are some procedures that are generally followed in the purchase of parkland. The county has general guidelines for the purchase of land for a district park.

It should have twenty usable acres. The county attorney should, and generally does, review the purchase contract to ensure that these protections are in place. In addition, in any land purchase made by the county there must be two appraisals for the purpose of determining the value of the land. The county is not limited to the appraised value, the commissioners can pay whatever they wish. However, purchases over appraised value must be approved by more than a majority of the commission. In the case of parkland, there is a Parks Advisory Committee composed of taxpayers who have some knowledge in this field. This committee was formed to help the commissioners make sensible decisions when purchasing land for parks and to decide what land is best and what type of park is most needed in an area. Since the committee is a tool of the commission, it makes sense to consult them on such purchases. More common sense dictates that the county Parks Departments and their staff of planners be consulted and their input made part of the purchase proposal. The county Property Manager reviews the transaction. These steps are part of a series of checks and balances to assure that taxpayer money is spent wisely. Unfortunately, in this instance these steps were not followed.

In February 1998, Commissioner Melzer asked for permission to determine if she could purchase approximately sixteen acres for a park with district funds. According to the county Land Use Procedure, such a park should have at least twenty usable acres. It was noted that the proposed selling price of $1.75 million was more than the available funding. Commissioner Melzer proposed to wait for an appraisal and possibly purchase less property or use other funds. She assured the board that she would follow standard procedures for obtaining appraisals and the board authorized staff to proceed with appraisals, environmental reviews, etc.
The project next surfaced at the board meeting of July 13, 1999. Two appraisals paid for with tax dollars showed the property valued at $450,000 and $600,000 respectively. These appraisals were on record in writing and available for public inspection thirty days before the purchase was considered. The board was advised at the meeting that the seller had another appraisal in excess of $1 million. This appraisal is not a written part of the meeting record and so far as we can determine, had not been reviewed by any county department. It does not appear in county records. We asked for a copy and were told there was none. There evidently is nothing illegal about any of this. If the commissioners were willing to accept an unproven statement of value and vote unanimously they could proceed with the purchase.

The commissioners did agree unanimously to spent $900,000 to purchase twelve acres for a park; $300,000 over the highest of the two written appraisals on record, which were ignored. There was comment about the scarcity of parkland in Palm City, a comment not supported with any facts, and that extenuating circumstances made it necessary to move forward. The discussion did reveal that the neighborhood had not been canvassed to get their reactions to this park, generally a basic step. Commissioner Melzer agreed that any land needed for right-of-way for a bridge would be made available.

With the addition of platted streets already owned by the county, the parcel is about fifteen acres, 3/4 the recommended size of such a park. The agenda summary noted that some of the land might be required for highway right-of-way, but there was no way of estimating how much land might be lost. Since the parcel is already small, any loss might severely restrict its use as a park and the county would now own another unsuitable parcel of land. The decision made to move forward with the park without knowing how much land will be available seems odd, but given the glacial progress made on other county parks the road decision will probably be made before action is taken.

To us, the key fact is that in one day and without any prior discussion, our commissioners managed to ignore a $600,000 appraisal they paid for in 1998 and accept an unrecorded, and so far as we can tell, unwritten, and unexamined appraisal for half again as much and to act on this purchase with an alacrity totally absent in most of their decisions.

We think the whole affair demonstrates once again that the commissioners have no regard for either taxpayer money of their own rules. The Park Advisory Board, formed by the commissioners to give advice, was ignored. The taxpayers living in the immediate area will be affected by traffic, noise, and lights were not consulted. Appraisals paid for by taxpayers were ignored, and departments, which should have been part of the decision-making process, were essentially bypassed. All in all a pretty sorry affair and unfortunately par for the course.


W e encourage your comments, criticisms, ideas, or any questions about how your taxes work; call or fax 288-0474 or write to us at PO Box 741, Stuart, FL 34995 or e-mail us at admin@mctaxpayers.org or visit our WEB site, mctaxpayers.org.